Fundamentalism

The term Fundamentalism originally meant an attempt to go back to the "fundamentals" of Biblical faith, and first appeared in the early 1900s among American Protestant Christianity. However, in modern usage the word fundamentalism has developed negative connotations and is often associated with intolerance and narrow-mindedness. The term has expanded beyond Christianity to include any religious group that posits a infallable interpretation of their sacred texts and a distrust of alternate interpretations. Typically, fundamentalism is characterized by a cluster of common attributes including: a suspicion of outsiders, a sense of alienation in the midst of the dominant culture and/or secularism, and the belief in the historical accurcy and inerrancy of their religious scriptures. Additionally, religious fundamentalists are often politically active and they may feel that the state must be subservient to God. There are many forms of religious fundamentalism such as Christain fundamnetlaism, Islamic fundamnetialsm, Hindu fundmanetlaism, etc. Most religions contain fundmanetlaists. However, many groups described as fundamentalist often strongly object to this term both because it has become a derogatory label, or because it implies a similarity between themselves and other groups, which they find objectionable. The appeal of fundamentalism is its simplicity: people must do what God tells them to do, although this insistence on strict observation of religious laws may lead to an accusation of "legalism." Fundamentalism has often been called one of gravest problems facing humanity today, but ongoing efforts to overcome fundamentalism within the world's religions are often overlooked.

Historical Origins

The concept of "Fundamentalism" arose in 1909 from the title of a four volume set of books called The Fundamentals. These books were published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (B.I.O.L.A. now Biola University), between 1909 and 1920. They were called "The Fundamentals" because they appealed to Christians to affirm specific fundamental doctrines such as The Virgin Birth and bodily Resurrection of Jesus. This series of essays came to be representative of the "Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy" which appeared late in the 19th century within the Protestant churches of the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s.

Over time the term came to be, incorrectly, associated with a particular segment of evangelical Protestantism, who distinguished themselves by their separatist approach toward modernity, toward aspects of the culture which they feel typified the modern world, and toward other Christians who did not similarly separate themselves. Originally members of the various Protestant denominations who subscribed to the "fundamentals" were called "fundamentalists" and they did not form an independent denomination. However, they have since broken up into various movements. Early "fundamentalists" included J. Gresham Machen and B.B. Warfield, men who would not be considered "Fundamentalists" today. Examples of things that modern fundamentalists might believe important to avoid are, modern translations of the Bible, alcoholic drinks or recreational drugs, tobacco, modern popular music, dancing, "mixed bathing" (men and women swimming together), and gender-neutral or trans-gender clothing and hair-styles. Such things might seem innocuous to the outsider, but to some fundamentalists they represent the leading edge of a threat to the virtuous way of life and the purer form of belief that they seek to protect and to hold forth before the world as an example. Many fundamentalists accept only the King James Version translation of the Bible and study tools based on it, such as the Scofield Reference Bible.

Rationale of Religious Fundamentalism

"Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of a religion. It has especially come to refer to any religious enclave that intentionally resists identification with the larger religious group in which it originally arose, on the basis that fundamental principles upon which the larger religious group is founded have supposedly become corrupt. Fundamentalist" has become more than only a term either of self-description or of derogatory contempt. Fundamentalism is therefore a movement through which the adherents attempt to rescue religious identity from absorption into post-modernism and secularism. Many scholars see most forms of fundamentalism as having similar traits. This is especially obvious if modernity, secularism or an atheistic perspective is adopted as the norm, against which these varieties of traditionalism are compared. From such a perspective, Peter Huff wrote in the International Journal on World Peace:

"According to Antoun, fundamentalists in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, despite their doctrinal and practical differences, are united by a common worldview which anchors all of life in the authority of the sacred and a shared ethos that expresses itself through outrage at the pace and extent of modern secularization." [1]

This formation of a separate identity is deemed necessary on account of a perception that the religious community has surrendered its ability to define itself in religious terms. The "fundamentals" of the religion have been jettisoned by neglect, lost through compromise and inattention. Fundamentalists believe their cause to have grave and even cosmic importance. They see themselves as protecting not only a distinctive doctrine, but also a vital principle, and a way of life and of salvation. Community, comprehensively centered upon a clearly defined religious way of life in all of its aspects, is the promise of fundamentalist movements, and it therefore appeals to those adherents of religion who find little that is distinctive, or authentically vital in their previous religious identity.

The fundamentalist "wall of virtue", which protects their identity, is erected against not only alien religions, but also against the modernized, compromised, nominal version of their own religion. In Christianity, fundamentalists are "Born again" and "Bible-believing" Protestants, as opposed to "Mainline", "liberal", "modernist" Protestants, who represent "Churchianity"; in Islam they are jama'at (Arabic: (religious) enclaves with connotations of close fellowship) self-consciously engaged in jihad (struggle) against Western culture that suppresses authentic Islam (submission) and the God-given (Shari'ah) way of life; in Judaism they are Haredi "Torah-true" Jews; and they have their equivalents in Hinduism and other world religions. These groups insist on a sharp boundary between themselves and the faithful adherents of other religions, and finally between a "sacred" view of life and the "secular" world and "nominal religion". Fundamentalists direct their critiques toward (and draw most of their converts from) the larger community of their religion, by attempting to convince them that they are not experiencing the authentic version of their professed religion.

Religious Fundamentalism around the World

Christian views

Self-described Christian fundamentalists see their scripture, a combination of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, as both infallible and historically accurate. The New Testament represents a new covenant between God and human beings, which is held to fulfill the Old Testament, in regard to God's redemptive plan. On the basis of this confidence in Scripture, many fundamentalist Christians accept the account of scripture as being literally true.

It is important to distinguish between the "literalist" and Fundamentalist groups within the Christian community. Literalists, as the name indicates, hold that the Bible should be taken literally in every part (though English language Bibles are themselves translations and therefore not a literal, word-for-word rending of the original texts). Many Christian Fundamentalists, on the other hand, are for the most part content to hold that the Bible should be taken literally only where there is no indication to the contrary. As William Jennings Bryan put it, in response to Clarence Darrow's questioning during the Scopes Trial (1925):

"I believe that everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there; some of the Bible is given illustratively. For instance: 'Ye are the salt of the earth.' I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people."

(Source needed)

Nevertheless, they typically believe that it is the church's obligation (imperfectly realized) to understand the Scriptures, so far as that is possible to act accordingly. Still, the tendency toward a literal reading of the Bible is criticized by mainline Protestant scholars and others.[2] [3] [4] .

According to religious fundamentalists, sacred scripture is esteemed to be the authentic and literal word of God. Since Scripture is considered to be the word of God, fundamentalists believe that no person has the right to change it or disagree with it. Their view is predicated on the twin doctrines that God articulated his will precisely to prophets, and that followers also have a reliable and perfect record of that revelation. As a result, people are "obliged" to obey the word of God.

The term, fundamentalist, is difficult to apply unambiguously in Christianity. Many self-described Fundamentalists would include Jerry Falwell in their company, but would not embrace Pat Robertson as a fundamentalist because of his espousal of charismatic teachings. Fundamentalist institutions include Pensacola Christian College, and Bob Jones University, but classically Fundamentalist schools such as Fuller Theological Seminary and Biola University no longer describe themselves as Fundamentalist, although in the broad sense described by this article they are fundamentalist (better, Evangelical) in their perspective.

Because of the prevalence of dispensational eschatology, some fundamentalists vehemently support the modern nation of Israel, believing the Jews to have significance in God's purposes parallel to the Christian churches, and a special role to play at the end of the world.

Jewish views

Jewish denominations believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible or Old Testament) cannot be understood literally or alone, but rather needs to be read in conjunction with additional material known as the oral law; this material is contained in the Mishnah, Talmud, Gemara and Midrash. While the Tanakh is not read in a literal fashion, Orthodox Judaism does view the text itself as divine, infallible, and transmitted essentially without change, and places great import in the specific words and letters of the Torah. As well, some adherents of Orthodox Judaism, especially Haredi Judaism, "Torah-true" Jews, see the Mishnah, Talmud and Midrash as divine and infallible in content, if not in specific wording. Hasidic Jews frequently ascribe infallibility to their Rebbe's interpretation of the traditional sources of truth.

(add a section on the "letter of the law" versus. the "spirit of the law")

Mormon views

Within the cluster of groups who hold the Book of Mormon as scripture, a conservative movement of Mormonism practices what its adherents consider to be the fundamental aspects of Mormonism. Most often, Mormon fundamentalism represents a break from the brand of Mormonism practiced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and a return to Mormon doctrines and practices which adherents believe the LDS Church has allegedly wrongly abandoned, such as plural marriage, the Law of Consecration, the Adam-God theory, blood atonement, the Patriarchal Priesthood, elements of the Mormon Endowment ritual, and often the exclusion of Blacks from the priesthood. Mormon fundamentalists have formed numerous sects, many of which have established small, cohesive, and isolated communities in areas of the Western United States.

Islamic views

Muslims believe that their religion was revealed by Allah (God) to Prophet Muhammad, the final messanger of Islam. Islamic fundamentalism cannot be limited merely to the criterion of seeing scripture as the infallible word of God because all Muslims venerate the Holy Qura'n as the literal word of Allah, which is a fundamental (original sense of the word) tenet of their faith. Therefore, the concept of Islamic fundamentalism requires further elaboration and refinement.

(Expand section- Import from Islam article)

Historically, Islamic fuandmanmetlaism can be traced back to the rise of the Wahhabi movment in Arabia (give dates).

Further impetus for Islamic fundamnetialsim arose from the Islamic revolution of Iran in 1979 and the rise of the Aytolla Kohmeni. he promoted around the world anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-West secularism.

both political devlopments.

In sum, Islamic fundmanetlaism is characterized by the following cluster of attributes:

connection with politics, It describes the beliefs of traditional Muslims that they should restrict themselves to literal interpretations of their sacred texts, the Qur'an and Hadith. Islamic fundamentalism represents a conservative religious belief, as opposed to liberal movements within Islam. "Islamic fundamentalism" is most often used to describe Muslim individuals and groups which advocate Islamism, a political ideology calling for the replacement of state secular laws with Islamic law. The more radical of these Islamists may advocate violent overthrow of secular states, or even Islamist terrorism.

"Non-Abrahamic" religions

Some argue that the religious idea of fundamentalism is limited to the "Abrahamic religions", and have connected the phenomenon specifically to the notion of revealed religion. However, in the landmark series on fundamentalism, Martin Marty and others have identified fundamentalism also in non-Abrahamic religions, including Hinduism.

Followers of Hinduism generally adhere to the Vedic statement, "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously", which would seem to make relativism practically a fundamental tenet. However, a few sects within Hinduism do have a tendency to dogmatically view the Vedas as divinely inspired, superior or even flawless. Regardless, some claim that no Hindu can be found who considers his/her name of God to be that of the "only true God" or their scriptures to be the "only scriptures truly inspired by God" or their prophet to be the "final one". In fact it is normal that Hinduism is itself divided into many different sects and groups with new sects and new philosophies continuously being added; consequently, the fundamentalist enclaves identified by The Fundamentalism Project, which claim to be purer than others, are regarded as aberrant within Hinduism.

The Japanese Nichiren sect of Buddhism, which believes that other forms of Buddhism are heretical, is also sometimes labelled fundamentalist. However, Nichiren Buddhism contains influences from Shintoism and a strongly nationalistic streak that help to explain its anomolous character in Buddhism as a whole.

Non-religious fundamentalism

Some refer to any literal-minded or intolerant philosophy with pretense of being the sole source of objective truth, as fundamentalist, regardless of whether it is called a religion. For example, when the Communist state of Albania under the leadership of Enver Hoxha declared itself an "atheist state", it was deemed by some to be a form of "Fundamentalist Atheism" or more accurately "Stalinist Fundamentalism". There are people who in their attempt to live according to the writings of Ayn Rand seem to transgress respect for other perspectives in propagating their views, so that they are deemed to be a kind of "Objectivist Fundamentalist." In France, the imposition of restrictions on public display of religion has been labelled by some as "Secular Fundamentalism." The idea of non-religious Fundamentalism almost always expands the definition of "Fundamentalism" along the lines of criticisms. Occasionally, it represents an idea of purity, and is self-applied as signifying a rather counter-cultural fidelity to a simple principle, as in '"Economic fundamentalism."

Arguments in favor of fundamentalist positions

Fundamentalists claim that they practice their religion as the first adherents did and that this is how religion ought to be practiced. For example, Christian fundamentalists oftenb contend that modern Christians should still practice Christinaity as those who knew and followed Jesus did during his time on earth. Correspondingly, a Muslim ought to give the same consideration as in Muhammad's time. Analogous arguments can be made for most systems of religious belief. Further justification is adduced from the static or falling attendance of many liberal or reformed congregations, from the scandals that have struck, and from the increasing difficulty of distinguishing between religiously liberal and avowedly secularist views on such matters as homosexuality, abortion and women's rights.

Criticism of the fundamentalist position

Many criticisms of the fundamentalist position have been offered. The most common is that the theological claims made by fundamentalist groups cannot be proven. Another criticism is that the rhetoric of these groups offers an appearance of uniformity and simplicity, yet within each faith community, one actually finds different texts of religious law that are accepted; each text has varying interpretations. Consequently, each fundamentalist faith is observed to splinter into many mutually antagonistic groups. They are often as hostile to each other as they are to other religions. In addition, it has been observed that there is no such thing as a Muslim, Jewish, or Christian Fundamentalist. Rather, a fundamentalist's fundamentalism is their primary concern, over and above other denominational or faith considerations.

In order to carry out the fundamentalist program in practice, critics claim that one would first need a perfect understanding of the ancient language of the original text, if indeed the true text can be discerned from among variants. Furthermore, they charge that fundamentalists fail to recognize that fallible human beings are the ones who transmit this tradition. Elliot N. Dorff writes "Even if one wanted to follow the literal word of God, the need for people first to understand that word necessitates human interpretation. Through that process human fallibility is inextricably mixed into the very meaning of the divine word. As a result, it is impossible to follow the indisputable word of God; one can only achieve a human understanding of God's will." (A Living Tree, Dorff, 1988). Most fundamentalists do not deal with this argument. Those that do reply to this critique hold their own religious leaders are guided by God, and thus partake of divine infallibility.

Christian fundamentalists often insist that the Bible is infallible in its various prophetic assertions. However, in the book of Ezekiel, specifically Ezekiel 26:1-14, we find a prophecy (the conquering of the city of Tyre) that, according to Ezekiel 29:18-20, seems to have not been fullfilled in exactly the way the prophet had predicted. This prophecy is the subject of much scholarly debate in regard to interpretation of the prophecy itself and the interpretation of the actual events that took place. At any rate, it is clear that Nebuchadnezzar did in fact conquer the city of Tyre as prophesied, although the spoils of the battle apparently were not as extravagant as Ezekiel predicted they would be, and the city has been rebuilt (modern day Sur, Lebanon) contrary to prophetic claims it would never stand again.

ignores contradictions in the Bible, For example, who saw who first, different days etc.

Fundamentialsit are criticized by questioning the historical accuracy of the religious texts in question when compared to other historical sources; as well as questioning how documents that some believe to contain many contradictions could be conisedered to be fallible.

A general criticism of fundamentalism is the claim that fundamentalists are selective in what they believe and practice. For instance, the book of Exodus dictates that when a man's brother dies, he must marry his widowed sister-in-law. Yet fundamentalist Christians do not adhere to this doctrine, despite the fact that it is not contradicted in the New Testament. However, defenders of fundamentalism argue that according to New Testament theology, large parts, if not all of the Mosaic Law, are not normative for modern Christians. They may cite passages such Colossians 2:14 which describes Jesus Christ as "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us" (NKJV). Other fundamentalists argue that only certain parts of the Mosaic Law, parts that rely on universal moral principles, are normative for today. Therefore, in their view, there is no contradiction between such passages in the Old Testament and their belief in Biblical infallibility.

Objections to the use of the term

Christian fundamentalists, who generally consider the term to be positive when used to refer to themselves, often strongly object to being grouped with Muslim fundamentalists into a single category, and resent being labeled together with factions that use kidnapping, murder, and terrorist acts to achieve their ends. They feel that characteristics based on the new definition are wrongly projected back onto Christian fundamentalists by their critics. There is however no objection to the term fundamentalist when used to describe only Christian groups, and objections to the term "Muslim fundamentalist" are much less strong.

Many Muslims protest the use of the term when referring to Islamist groups, because all Muslims believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Qur'an, and western writers only use the term to refer to extremist groups. Furthermore, Muslims often object to being placed in the same category as Christian fundamentalists, whom they see as being religiously incorrect. Unlike Christian fundamentalist groups, Muslim groups do not use the term fundamentalist to refer to themselves. However, in the Islamic world, Wahhabis are overwhelmingly considered to be fundamentalists; Shiite groups which are considered fundamentalist in the western world are not considered such in the Islamic world.

The Associated Press stylebook recommends that the term fundamentalist not be used for any group that does not apply the term to itself. This would generally mean that some Christian groups can be described as fundamentalist, but Islamist groups can not be. This recommendation is not universally followed by news writers, however.

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Appleby, R. Scott, Gabriel Abraham Almond, and Emmanuel Sivan (2003). Strong Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226014975
• Armstrong, Karen (2001). The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-39169-1
• Brasher, Brenda E. (2001). The Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415922445
• Dorff, Elliot N. and Rosett, Arthur, A Living Tree; The Roots and Growth of Jewish Law, SUNY Press, 1988.
• Gorenberg, Gershom. (2000). The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount. New York: The Free Press.
• Marsden; George M. (1980). Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 Oxford University Press, ([5])
• Marty, Martin E. and R. Scott Appleby (eds.). The Fundamentalism Project. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • (1991). Volume 1: Fundamentalisms Observed. ISBN 0-226-50878-1
  • (1993). Volume 2: Fundamentalisms and Society. ISBN 0-226-50880-3
  • (1993). Volume 3: Fundamentalisms and the State. ISBN 0-226-50883-8
  • (1994). Volume 4: Accounting for Fundamentalisms. ISBN 0-226-50885-4
  • (1995). Volume 5: Fundamentalisms Comprehended. ISBN 0-226-50887-0
• Ruthven, Malise (2005). "Fundamentalism: The Search for Meaning". Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0192806068
• Torrey, R.A. (ed.). (1909). The Fundamentals. Los Angeles: The Bible Institute of Los Angeles (B.I.O.L.A. now Biola University). ISBN 0801012643
• "Religious movements: fundamentalist." In Goldstein, Norm (Ed.) (2003). The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law 2003 (38th ed.), p. 218. New York: The Associated Press. ISBN 0-917360-22-2.

External links

• Thoughts on "Religious Fundamentalism" Identity
• International Coalition Against Political Islam
• No to Political Islam
• Psychological Issues of Former Members of Restrictive Religious Groups by Jim Moyers, MA, MFT; originally written for psychotherapists working with ex-fundamentalists
• Q & A on Islamic Fundamentalism
• Introduction to Fundamentalism
• www.blessedquietness.com a conservative Christian website, maintained by Steve van Natten
• Mid-Acts Dispensational Fundamentals
• Reality With Bite A site highlighting the danger of religious fundamentalism, especially how it affects women.
• American Taliban Quotes, mainly from fundamentalists, referred to here as the "American Taliban"
• Women Against Fundamentalism (UK)
• The Rise of Religious Violence

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Fundamentalism  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Fundamentalism"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.